We're Going To Do Return to the Tomb of Horrors and One Player has Freaked Out!

[Ridley's Cohort]

I have not played Return. A DM I trust bought it. He said (more or less):
"I could run it as a one shot. But I could not run with our regular group of PCs unless I heavily revised it. There are a few places where you make a very minor mistake and the character is just...gone."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In todays "Balance" driven games players are not prepared for a session where they are outclassed and outgunned.

I just had to laugh at this comment.

My experience of 1e/2e is the DMs had rebalance in advance and on the fly much, much more often to prevent encounters from blowing up and ending the campaign. Why? Because it was an absolute physical impossibility for half the party to flee because of armor speed. Do you abandon your friends at the first sign of serious danger or do you stand your ground with your brothers in arms?

In the Good New Days the DM can really take the gloves off after 6th level because the PCs have a number of reasonably priced options. If they cannot escape it is their own lack of foresight 9 times out of 10.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Yes, but that doesn't matter.

It most certainly does. You played the adventure completely out of context and drew a conclusion from that. You can't take "epic" level characters through an adventure designed for level 13-16.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If they cannot escape it is their own lack of foresight 9 times out of 10.

Or an Improved Grabbing owlbear advanced to 11 HD agaist a group of 5th and 6th level PCs.

*evil laugh*

 

[Ice man]

I have both played thru and DMed that adventure...neither group suffered any permanent losses although we did lose some pretty nice items...oh well.

What this boils down to is do you trust your DM? Is he the sort that would seek to wrap up a campaign by annihilating the group or does he legitimately want to run the adventure and continue the campaign?

Last thought...I might get replies on this...its just a character, its a sheet of paper. Yes, all good roleplayers put something of themselves in a well developed character but if you were to lose your 15th level whatever it isn't the end of the world.

 

[Bryan898]

RANT SPOILER
I'm a little disappointed by how someone could agree with him not wanting to play this with that reasoning. Personally, if my player didn't want to play because he feared losing his character I'd tell him to not play then. I don't think his character was hard-earned at all, or that he put a whole lot of work into him. All the "hard work" he's put into his PC is really having a good time playing a game devised by the person doing the real hard work, the DM. If the DM puts the time into running your campaign, giving you adventures and plotlines to get you where you are, and has to basically create everything, shouldn't he have the right to have a say where the campaign is heading? He put time and effort into the converting that monster adventure, not to mention the time needed to read it, and seems fairly excited about it. If I did all that work and my players wouldn't even give it a shot because they were too scared too lose their characters.... Acerack would win and the world would be consumed by fire, and guess what would happen to their characters? Call me an a** or spiteful if you will, but I think anyone who chooses that course of action is ungrateful, and personally wouldn't DM for them. It's a game that requires a lot of work by one person that provides you with a lot of fun. Don't you think you owe it to him to at least try something he wants to do? I'm really big on the tough love factor. If you can't face up to losing a character, either don't play or grow up.
END RANT

 

[Saeviomagy]

Frankly, if my DM is running a module, and that module is crap to the level of destroying my fun, then I feel I have an obligation to tell him that the module probably needs some fixing. I'll point out the problems, etc etc, but in all seriousness, the fact that a module turned out to be crap is often not something you can assess before it is run.

If, on the other hand, the DM bought the module KNOWING that it would be crap (ie - it's widely known for it's make-a-sensible-choice-and-then-die-and-never-come-back components), and he waves it at me, and then proclaims "I'm going to run this crap module", then I'm probably going to have a bit of a tizzy, especially if the module is widely known as going directly against the campaigns theme and style of play to date.

 

[ThirdWizard]

RANT SPOILER
END RANT

What you hear and what the player hears in this case are different. What the player hears is "I want to kill you. Repeatedly, and for no other reason than I want to kill you. And, I'm hoping for a TPK along the way. Suckers."

IMC PCs die all the time. I almost had a TPK last session, and about four or five sessions ago I almost had a TPK, too. That said, I would not run this module. I don't want the players to die so badly that I'll resort to that monstrocity.

 

[Jupp]

Frankly, if my DM is running a module, and that module is crap to the level of destroying my fun, then I feel I have an obligation to tell him that the module probably needs some fixing. I'll point out the problems, etc etc, but in all seriousness, the fact that a module turned out to be crap is often not something you can assess before it is run.

If, on the other hand, the DM bought the module KNOWING that it would be crap (ie - it's widely known for it's make-a-sensible-choice-and-then-die-and-never-come-back components), and he waves it at me, and then proclaims "I'm going to run this crap module", then I'm probably going to have a bit of a tizzy, especially if the module is widely known as going directly against the campaigns theme and style of play to date.

This module is a lot of things, but it certainly is not "crap". It might be a killer mod, a deathtrap, exceedingly difficult and a lot more. But not crap. The D&D movie was crap, Teletubbies are crap, yes sir.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Last thought...I might get replies on this...its just a character, its a sheet of paper. Yes, all good roleplayers put something of themselves in a well developed character but if you were to lose your 15th level whatever it isn't the end of the world.

But it very well might be the end of the campaign. Especially if we aren't talking about one character, but about half the party.

Many DMs make sure to integrate the Characters into the plotline. In fact, that's one of the things I consider to be signs of a Great Dungeon Master. The adventures aren't just "We want you guys to do that because noone else is available right now. Try if you can make it, if you die, we just sent the next badge in. Some of the Adventures and Plots are really tied to the Character, for a number of reasons: They are the Chosen One from a prophecy (okay, cliché.), it's their loved one they want to rescue, they are the ones who know all the pieces to the puzzle, etc. In these cases, you cannot just say: Well, your character is now enclosed in eternal darkness, with no chance of deliverance whatsoever, build another character to save his loved one. We just pretend that your character wasn't the only one who really knew her, and thus can tell her apart from the evil shapechanger who impersonates her." The whole storyline just became so much useless paper.

Sure, if the DM doesn't have a higher plotline, or one that has nothing to do with the heroes, you could say: "well, it's just a piece of paper, despite the fact that I played that character for 2 years now, so I'll send him on a suicide mission without apparent reason."

I don't think his character was hard-earned at all, or that he put a whole lot of work into him. All the "hard work" he's put into his PC is really having a good time playing a game devised by the person doing the real hard work, the DM.

So you say that all characters belong to the DM, and if he decides to kill them on a whim, the Players should shut up and stop complaining? Remind me never to play when you're the DM. You don't need us anyway. Players are a distraction from work, anyway...

If you can't face up to losing a character, either don't play or grow up.

Real irony. Someone proving his immaturity by ranting at soneone because he has a different playstile, and then that person tells the rest to "grow up". Hong, is that you in disguise?


For the record: We're not talking about someone being afraid to lose his character in the normal course of the plot. We're talking about someone being concerned about the party being sent into a player character slaughterhouse for no apparent reason (unless the original player neglected to tell us why the module is tied to the greater plotline, or I haven't read that)